Fears of Presidential Over-reach

I recently listened to what I believe is an important conversation on NPR's "To the Point" show - a radio show which purports to include informed voices from all sides of an issue (though it seems to me that both the framing of topics and selection of experts nevertheless tends to "skew left," politically speaking).

This show featured a discussion of Presidential over-reach in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling (one in a string of such rulings, actually) that the Obama White House had overstepped its authority in appointing "recess appointments" of government posts while the Congress was still technically (if only nominally) in session.  Presumably the appointed officials are too far to the 'political left' to be approved by the politically-balanced Senate, and so the President made this move simply to "go around" the Congress and get his picks in place.

What I found refreshing about this discussion was its candor - even some of the experts who were supposed to be representing the "liberal perspective" were frankly concerned about the behavior of the President (and as they all pointed out - rightly in my view - the previous President as well); it was even suggested that the actions of our chief executive were more befitting a King or Monarch, rather than a President.

When Bush was in office, Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. revised and re-released his book The Imperial Presidency tracing the rise of presidential power over the decades.  It seems that neither of our two major political parties is much interested in diminishing presidential power, but only in having one of their own wear the crown; many of the so-called "third parties," on the other hand, from Libertarians to the Constitution Party (and perhaps Tea Party Republicans as well) seem agreed about the need return to the model that is actually laid out in The Constitution, though they envision this rather differently. 

Having been reading a nice volume of the Founding Fathers as one of my side projects (something every voter ought to do), I am increasingly convinced that our national Founders would be astonished and horrified at the extent of executive power as it now exists; and I believe that we the people are right to be concerned and that NPR's conversation is very timely.  (Note: they would also be appalled at the extent to which our democratic processes are corrupted by money at every level of government, but that is another discussion for another day).

Consider the following: As everyone now knows, our President orders robot drones to assassinate enemies of the state even within the borders of foreign lands; our President oversees a government whose spy-network has been collecting data and even phone and email conversations from both American and foreign citizens without warrant, transparency or accountability; our President has pushed a health care law that (as initially envisioned) forced Roman Catholic and other Christian Church institutions to buy birth control - even measures that many contend are abortifacient - despite their long-held religious convictions on these issues and despite the First Amendment's guarantee of Free Exercise of Religion (there is no such provision in the Constitution guaranteeing that one's employer must provide one with free birth control); many in the media have also expressed concerns about this Presidential administration's violating the First Amendment's guarantee of a Free Press as well.  On certain culture war issues - such as the decision by this White House that its Justice Department will no longer enforce federal laws enacted by Congress that ban the use of marijuana - the President has clearly over-stepped his role, which is to enforce the laws made by Congress, not decide whether or not he wants to do so (this is the stated reason why Republican Leader John Boehner announced that he wanted to sue the President back in June).

While the Republicans have talked of suing, President Obama has appealed directly to the American people to support him.  But under our Constitution it is the House of Representatives that is most directly an expression of the will of the people since the House can be Re-elected or Un-elected every 2 years.  This is the time-table on which accountability in our form of government works.  November will tell us what the will of the voters indeed is.

A Secular Case Against Redefining Marriage

This post, as the title should make clear, deals strictly with the debate over the legal definition of the word "marriage."

The official position of The United Methodist Church is that "We support laws in civil society defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman."

Some today label our church's conviction as unjust, even 'bigoted.'  I have watched this "marriage debate" play out online and on TV with great distress because of the amount of name-calling, slogan-slinging, and plain old logical fallacy.  The fact that the presentation in the video below was accused by some activists of being "hate speech" (which presumably they would like to criminalize) is a perfect example of our collective failure in this country to think and debate in a logical manner, and to do business with the logical arguments of others.

I suggest that anyone willing to voice an opinion on this issue of the legal definition of marriage should grapple with the questions raised in the video below.  This is one of the most articulate presentations I've run across so far defending the classical definition of marriage as a positive good for society and warning against the consequences of redefining marriage to include same sex unions (or any other redefinition).  As the speaker says early on, this argument is not religious, but based entirely in philosophy and sociology, looking at marriage from a public policy stance.

Of course, as a pastor in the church, I share this video in an attempt to show that there can indeed be a coherent reason for our church's teaching (and the general catholic consensus on this issue), if only we stop to ask what marriage is and why the government has any interest in regulating this relationship at all (there are plenty of emotionally intense consensual relationships that the government does not take part in regulating - the government does not, after all, issue "friendship licenses" - ever asked why this difference?).





You may ask, in light of recent Court rulings, if the arguing in favor of the traditional stance is a lost cause.  As far as many are concerned, this debate is over.  Yet there are still some 20 states that uphold natural marriage (including my home state, which has been the first in some time to win a federal court case on this issue) and we may yet be allowed to govern ourselves at the state level on this issue (as is in keeping with the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution); furthermore, if our church's position is correct, and if the presenter in the video making the secular case is also correct, then surely it is always worthwhile rallying around the truth and advocating laws that tell the truth about marriage, family, and society.

And here I must also be sure to add that I do believe - and perhaps my home state can still make some progress here - that same-gender couples should be able to gain access to certain legal protections in terms of property-sharing, visitation rights, medical decision making, and the like.  Either some kind of civil contract providing these benefits is needed, or some education for using existing legal tools to protect them (such as powers of attorney, living wills, etc.).  As I've said before, this seems to me a basic case of "do unto others as you would have them do to you" while setting the "marriage debate" to the side.

Reports of Lambeth's demise greatly exaggerated

It has been reported and repeated on Anglican blogs and websites over the last couple of weeks that the anticipated 2018 Lambeth Conference was cancelled.  This rumor began with an interview with the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church who said as much.  It seems Presiding Bishop Katherine has not got things quite right.

HERE is an article with excerpts from an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, stating emphatically that the event was not cancelled - how could it be, since it has not even been called yet, no date was ever set, and no invitations have been sent - but that he would decide in conjunction with the other primates (presiding bishops and archbishops of Anglicanism's nearly 40 provinces) when and where to hold the next Lambeth Conference, rather than unilaterally controlling the schedule and the agenda as if he were an "Anglican pope."
The previous Archbishop's tight control over the agenda at Lambeth 2008 ensured that the Conference would make no major decisions and, as a result, a large portion of the world's Anglican bishops declined to even attend (a very costly enterprise for many from poorer nations).

The second part of this same interview also addresses a report that had emerged recently that Justin Welby was actually an agnostic.  When you read the full context of what the Archbishop said after he said "Yes" to the question, "Have you ever had doubts?" then the idea that the reported could turn around and report that Welby was agnostic is quite ridiculous; and that this reporter did so (and that other news outlets picked the story up and repeated it) will reinforce once again how the secular press often is either deliberately mis-representing someone's words for the sake of a "juicier story" or simply having no idea what theological and philosophical categories (like 'agnostic') actually even mean.

As the saying goes, "the press...just doesn't get religion..."  The saying has certainly proved true in this instance, and raises the whole question of responsible journalism since there will be folks who will read that headline about Canterbury being an agnostic, and that is what they will believe for life - and it may even affect decisions like whether they would ever consider attending an Anglican Church.

In fact, when Welby speaks of the tough - sometimes angry - questions hurled at God's feet by the Psalmists, when he speaks of asking "Why?" in the face of losing a child, yet still finding God to be faithful, what Welby actually upholds is a Biblically-grounded and moving account of a grown-up faith that lives in the real (very fallen) world and can ask the hard questions that come with that.

On Matthew 22:1-14 (for this coming Sunday)

I remember being on a retreat with a group of Anglicans once, at a beautiful retreat center at Sewanee Tennessee.  While Methodist retreat leaders tend to pick "feel-good" or thematic Scriptures for our retreats, these folks (being good Anglicans) simply read whatever was in the daily lectionary for our Morning Prayer gathering, and it happened to be the text that we have set before us this coming Sunday in the Lectionary, Matthew 22:1-14. That is the first time that I remember ever really meditating upon this text, and - while I cannot remember what Father Patrick Smith said about it, I do remember thinking that the passage was very bizzarre, especially the bit about the wedding garment at the end.  Why would the original invitees kill the messengers?  That seems extreme to say the least.  Why would the king throw out the man at the end of the parable for wearing the wrong clothes?  That also seemed extreme and disconnected from his previous wish to invite anyone and everyone.  Had he switched from being a King who wanted to include everyone in his wedding feast to one who was now exclusive and elitist based on the most inconsequential of externals?

I've since come to realize that "the wedding garment" is nothing other than the New Life we have in living, covenant, communion with Christ and his own life.  In baptism we "put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27); in our daily living we are to "clothe ourselves with the new life" (Eph. 4:24 - also picking up on the ancient baptismal tradition of putting on a new robe after baptism).  In a similar Biblical image, the "robes" of our lives are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14).  One cannot be a part of a Kingdom that is characterized by Compassion, Holiness, Righteousness, Love of God and neighbor while at the same time obstinately refusing to be clothed with the new life that brings these qualities to us.

My fellow Methodist clergy (and Anglicans who have a "Wesleyan accent") may find John Wesley's Sermon 120 - "On the Wedding Garment" useful food for thought on this text (which looks to be unusually short for a Wesley sermon).

Here are also a few comments from N.T. Wright's Matthew for Everyone (Part 2) on this text, that struck a chord with me:

"...this parable...often bothers people because it doesn't say what we want it to.  We want to hear a nice story about God throwing a party open to everyone.  We want (as people now fashionably say) to be 'inclusive,' to let everyone in.  We don't want to know about judgment on the wicked, or about demanding standards of holiness, or about weeping and gnashing of teeth...

But there was a difference between this wide-open invitation (that the King eventually gives in the parable) and the message that so many want to hear today.  We want to hear that everyone is all right exactly as they are; that God loves us as we are and doesn't want us to change.  People often say this when what they want is to justify particular types of behaviour, but the argument doesn't work.  When the blind and lame came to Jesus, he didn't say, "You're all right as you are."  He healed them.  They wouldn't have been satisfied with anything less.  When the prostitutes and extortioners came to Jesus...he didn't say, "You're all right as you are."  His love reached them where they were, but his love refused to let them stay as they were.  Love wants the best for the beloved.  Their lives were transformed, healed, changed.

Actually, nobody really believes that God wants everyone to stay exactly as they are.  God loves serial killers and child-molesters; God loves ruthless and arrogant businessmen; God loves manipulative mothers who damage their children's emotions for life.  But the point of God's love is that he wants them to change.  He hates what they are doing and the effect it has on everyone else - and on themselves, too.  Ultimately, if he's a good God, he cannot allow that sort of behaviour, and that sort of person, if they don't change, to remain forever in the party he's throwing for his son." 

While it may seem a scary parable - a warning of judgment for those who reject the freely-offered invitation (and I suspect some will avoid preaching it for exactly that reason, or will try to "explain it away") - it nevertheless has within it much wonderful news:  The King invites everyone and (when seen in light of the wedding garment as the new life in Christ) the King's Son himself provides the wedding robe for anyone who wants to be a part of the party that is the Heavenly Kingdom - all we have to do is have enough sense (and humility) to accept his offer, rather than demanding to be let in on our own terms, or demanding that his welcome should conform to our expectations.  He, after all, is the one throwing the party.  And we are invited!